Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Nov 2012 01:11 UTC, submitted by Panajev
Apple "Earlier this week Apple fired Scott Forstall, the architect of its iOS platform, and handed his duties over to the company's chief industrial designer, Jonathan Ive. Ive and Forstall had an infamously chilly working relationship, and one of their biggest disagreements was over the role of so-called 'skeuomorphic' design in Apple's products. Forstall, like his mentor Steve Jobs, favored it; Ive disliked it. To many observers, Forstall's forced exit looks like a vindication of Ive's stance. But if he wants to continue Apple's enviable trend of innovation, he'd be a fool to throw the baby of skeuomorphism out with Forstall's bathwater." Hoped for a thorough article on the benefits of skeuomorphism - got the age-old and intrinsically invalid excuse 'because it sells'. Windows isn't he best desktop operating system because it sells so well. Lady Gaga isn't the best artist because she sells a lot of records. This argument is never valid, has zero value, and adds nothing to what should be an interesting discussion.
Permalink for comment 541010
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by galvanash on Mon 5th Nov 2012 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Member since:

Everybody who claims this has no idea how advertising works. Your behaviour is, in fact, motivated by boatloads of advertising.

I hate this argument. Three or four people on this board have tried this one on me and I still don't buy it. It's not because there is no truth to it, its because it is often used as supporting evidence for a completely different claim - that certain products are successful solely because of marketing, or that people believe certain things because they are brain washed by marketing.

That somehow, merely as a 3rd party observer, someone can actually tell another person why they bought a product - to the point they will actually tell the person they are wrong when they try to explain why... "Im sorry, but you are just confused - the product you like is actually shitty and you are just a sheep".

This whole thread of discussion started because one guy said that people who bought Windows did it because they like it. Others contend that because people are motivated by marketing than that explains why they do things (i.e. they are sheep). Im not saying you are making this argument directly, but you brought the "everyone is affected by marketing" into this...

The two things can both be true at the same time, and in fact I would contend that "I like it" is ultimately way more important than marketing - and the two concepts are not necessarily related to each other.

What I see is that people who don't like a certain product simply use this argument to explain why other people buy it. Lady Gaga sucks, therefore her success can only be explained by marketing. Windows suck, therefore its success can only be explained by marketing.

I put forth a different hypothesis - not everyone likes the same things. People are willing to ignore some deficiencies in a product when it makes up for them in other ways. Everything is a tradeoff, and a consumers opinion of a product is made up of more than just the advertising budget of the manufacturer...

Some people like Fiona Apple and the Gilmore Girls - I have no idea why ;) But I certainly won't try to tell them it is because they are in fact being influenced subconsciously by marketing.

Reply Parent Score: 2